All Music Guide or Penguin?

[connoisseur series500]

I remember this discussion was made at the BNBB. I would like everyone's opinions regarding the merits and faults of these two commonly used guides.

Here are my thoughts:

There is no question that the Penguin guide is better written. The text is informative and humorous. However, there are lots of problems. For one, I can't stand the four stars grading system. I think it makes things easier for the reviewers. If the cd sounds fine then just give it 3 stars. I prefer AMG's use of the 5-star system. It is more accurate. Come to think of it, just about everything in Penguin is 3 stars!

Another thing which renders the Penguin guide virtually useless to me is the fact that it lists only in-print cds. This makes things very difficult for the Blue Note collectors, where so much is out of print. I don't collect all the back editions, so I have no idea how Penguin would rate, say, Andrew Hill, "Black Fire."

AMG is great for listing just about everything in- or out-of print. I am perturbed by the fact that their ratings can dramatically change from one edition to another. Makes you wonder whether they even listen to the cds. Most of the Conn Series seems to rate 5 stars and earns a black dot listing it as essential to the artist. One notable exception would be Andrew Hill, "Smokestack," which is given only three stars. The reviewers must have been drunk that day and got the cd confused with Don Wilkerson or something. Still, I personally find AMG's judgment on ratings to be superior to Penguin's.

I personally prefer AMG to the Penguin guide. Another bias is that AMG seems to rate hard bop BN stuff higher than Penguin; while Penguin rates any free jazz session as "essential" and gives them top rating. It seems that the editiors of Penguin are definitely into experimental and free jazz, while the AMG people lean toward BN hard bop.

What do you all think?

Edited May 23, 2003 by connoisseur series500

[Rooster_Ties]

For many of the reasons you gave, I also prefer the AMG. The most important reason, though, at least to me - is that the AMG includes all titles, and the Penguin only includes titles in-print.

I'm way beyond needing just to know the quality of what's in print. At least 25% of what I buy (maybe closer to 50%??) are OOP titles.

[Guest Mnytime]

My problems with AMG online are how they will rave on and on about a recording but than it only has 2 1/2 or 3 stars. Another thing is it will have 5 stars but no review at all. It won't even include the musicians involved. Never mind all the mistakes you will find.

I also don't care for how the ratings are based in the first place, which is within a particular artists other recordings instead of against the whole of jazz recordings as Penguin does.

I also wish the would get rid of some of the idiots that do the reviews on AMG. They need more consistenty in the reviews.

The best thing about AMG is that it is more current and gives info on OOP items.

[connoisseur series500]

I also don't care for how the ratings are based in the first place, which is within a particular artists other recordings instead of against the whole of jazz recordings as Penguin does.

Wow, I never realized that this is how AMG rates cds. Silly me; I guess I should have read the introduction or something.

I find it amusing how AMG does wax on about a terrific cd then in the end give it 2-3 stars. There is a lot of inconsistency between the write up and the rating.

[Rooster_Ties]

One of my least favorite reviews on AMG: Greg Osby: Symbols of Light (A Solution)

[JohnJ]

I think they complement each other and I regularly refer to both, the book in the case of Penguin and online with AMG.

[JohnS]

I agree with JohnJ. Penguin is my first point of call then AMG on line. They both have their uses.

[Alexander]

Speaking as someone who writes CD reviews (although not for the AMG), I think it is important to bear in mind that *any* review in any publication is merely a reflection of *one* person's subjective opinion. Both the Penguin Guide and the AMG must, therefore, be taken with a whole shaker-full of salt. Taken from that perspective, I think that both are very useful, and I tend to look recordings up in both. I, too, wish that the Penguin Guide had more reviews, but the ones they have are quite good, if you bear in mind Cook and Morton's particular likes and dislikes (they don't have much use for Hank Mobley, for example, but they seem to love George Coleman). The AMG has lots of reviews, but it seems that only fans of a particular artist write the reviews. For that reason, pretty much everything seems to get a rave (even if it only rates two stars). A bad write up in either the AMG or the Penguin Guide might give me pause, but it wouldn't prevent me from buying a CD that I was interested in.

[Claude]

I'm using both, but the AMG is more of a database for me and not so much a guide.

I'm wondering if anyone of you takes note of AMG's strange "Music Expert check" poll for every album. The resulting ratings ("Elegant, Sophisticated, Intimate, Ethereal, Elaborate, Ambitious" for the Osby album) are of no practical use for me.

[Late]

I'm with John (J & S) on this one. I look to both, but admit I have a lot more fun reading the Penguin Guide. I appreciate how their reviews don't enthuse too much (as I'm sometimes prone to do) with any given artist. Lee Morgan's entry I think is a good example. While The Sidewinder (understandably) receives a crown, Tom Cat gets nailed for being generally uninspired. Yes, there are some glaring omissions from the Penguin (Wayne Shorter's The All Seeing Eye comes to mind), but overall I find myself concurring with Cook and Morton's tastes. Additionally, if it weren't for the Penguin Guide, I would have never known to check out, say, Krzysztof Komeda's Astigmatic, or the Vienna Art Orchestra's Erik Satie album, two recordings that I now find essential.

I guess, actually, this means I'm throwing my lot with the Penguin Guide. Aside from some of their reviews on Sonny Rollins' RCA and Impulse! work , I trust their system. I have yet to feel about any of their crowns.

[Simon Weil]

I have an old copy of the Musichound Guide, which is what I use to for a first sketch. I do also have a whole bunch of other things, including various versions of the Penguin, which I do check things with. Plus there's things like the google archives of rec.music.bluenote, which is a source I use relatively frequently. I never did take to the allmusic guide - finding it lacking a distinctive voice which would enable me to judge its recommendations against - and, as I have said in different ways on other venues, I don't really trust the Penguin.

The Musichound is not wonderful, but I feel at home with it.

The rec.music.bluenote archives are a useful resource.

Simon Weil

[Daniel A]

The AMG has lots of reviews, but it seems that only fans of a particular artist write the reviews.

This is what I think is one of the great problems of the AMG. Nowadays, I mainly use the AMG for checking out which musicians who are playing on a certain album (and sometimes - as I'm moving towards more obscure releases - it doesn't even list them at all).

In the past, when I did have a rather small record collection, I had a lot more use for the Penguin than the AMG, allthough I rarely read it these days other than for pleasure. (When was the last time you READ the AMG for pleasure?) I got burned a few times - lured by Scott Yanow's routine hard bop praise - when a five star album turned out to be rather average.

[connoisseur series500]

I have an old copy of the Musichound Guide, which is what I use to for a first sketch. I do also have a whole bunch of other things, including various versions of the Penguin, which I do check things with. Plus there's things like the google archives of rec.music.bluenote, which is a source I use relatively frequently. I never did take to the allmusic guide - finding it lacking a distinctive voice which would enable me to judge its recommendations against - and, as I have said in different ways on other venues, I don't really trust the Penguin.

The Musichound is not wonderful, but I feel at home with it.

The rec.music.bluenote archives are a useful resource.

Simon Weil

Simon, what's the website for the rec.music.bluenote? Is it www.rec.music.bluenote?

Thanks

[Simon Weil]

Simon, what's the website for the rec.music.bluenote? Is it www.rec.music.bluenote?

Thanks

rec.music.bluenote is a usenet/newsgroup discussion group, which is archived by google in its "groups" section.

If you go to:

Google advanced group search

Type rec.music.bluenote into the newsgroup box and whatever else you're interested in into the other boxes...

For example, I typed " Albert Ayler" in where it says "exact phrase" and got ...this.....

Have fun.

Simon Weil

[connoisseur series500]

Thanks Simon.

[Guest Mnytime]

For those that are just to damn lazy to follow Simon's detailed directions here you go

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe....music.bluenote

Now if you prefer to see a 100 threads per page, you can change the preferences on the top of the page.

Edited May 24, 2003 by Mnytime

[Brad]

When starting out, I found AMG invaluable. However, as I've grown a little bit savvier I rely on it less. It is useful as a quick discography but by no means completely reliable. When I first got on the BNBB back in 99, this subject came up and I remember Lon saying at the time that he never used it, which impressed me. Now, I understand why.

Edited May 25, 2003 by Brad

[Jazzmoose]

I agree, Brad; the book pretty much sits on the shelf collecting dust now, but it certainly got a lot of use for a while. However, I still use the on-line version whenever I venture into something new. As an example, it's helping with my recent Parliament/Funkadelic obsession.

Judging by the comments here, I don't think I'll be buying the Penguin guide. Jazz is one area where an "in print only" guide would be absolutely worthless as a guide. If it's a good read, fine, but if it can't meet it's stated purpose, what's the point?

[Daniel A]

Judging by the comments here, I don't think I'll be buying the Penguin guide. Jazz is one area where an "in print only" guide would be absolutely worthless as a guide. If it's a good read, fine, but if it can't meet it's stated purpose, what's the point?

While not as comprehensive as one would wish, still the Penguin lists an awful lot of musicians, and I'd bet you're not familiar with all of them. It has made me buy records I'd never have known of without the guide, and one fact which is sometimes overlooked is that it lists quite a lot of European jazz which is not listed at all in the AMG.

[Claude]

Maybe I wouldn't be a jazz fan today without the Penguin guide that I bought in 1992. I also had the Rolling Stone Jazz Record Guide from 1985. There was no internet at that time of course, and both guides were the only introduction into jazz for me. Magazines cover mostly current musicians and releases, so they don't help as much in discovering the music's past as books do.

When I was living in Brussels as a student I regularly went to the public library (Mediathèque de la Communauté Francaise) which has a gigantic selection of CDs, including japan imports. I limited myself to borrow 5 CDs per week (at $1/CD), and without a guide I would have been completely lost in the choice and I would have missed many essential discs.

And even today I discover many interesting musicians in the Penguin guide that are not present by other media. The european jazz scene is very well covered. It's true that the authors favour free and avantgarde jazz and neglect some straight-ahead styles, but I personnally have no problem with that as it corresponds to my preferences.

[connoisseur series500]

It's true that the authors favour free and avantgarde jazz and neglect some straight-ahead styles, but I personnally have no problem with that as it corresponds to my preferences.

Glad someone else has noticed this trait with Penguin. I, on the other hand, prefer the straightahead stuff, so my preference is AMG.

[Sahara Blue Orchestra]

the public library (Mediathèque de la Communauté Francaise) which has a gigantic selection of CDs, including japan imports.

one of the best in europe!

[Jazzmoose]

...and one fact which is sometimes overlooked is that it lists quite a lot of European jazz which is not listed at all in the AMG.

I must admit, that does sound useful. Finding out about European jazz is a difficult task in this country.

[John B]

My problems with AMG online are how they will rave on and on about a recording but than it only has 2 1/2 or 3 stars.

I just came across an example of this. The review of Keith Tippett's Mujician III (August Air), by Thom Jurek, is a rave review, using phrases like "work of genius" and "perhaps most brilliant" yet only giving the album two stars. Makes no sense.

[Guest Mnytime]

John

Believe me when I say it deserves all the stars it can get. While the ratings are not correct his ravings in the review is. If you haven't picked this up or any of Tippet's solo recordings you should. Also, his duo recordings with Howard Riley. They have recently put out a trio piano recording adding John Tilbury that is excellent.

Than there is his Mujician group recordings.